Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 April, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:2.4.2013
Ranjit Singh
....... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondents No.2 to 5 had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 315, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the complaint filed by the applicant.
The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2010 ordered the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 5 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) has been filed by the applicant with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 21.10.2010.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed.
The case of the complainant, in brief, was that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M) 2 Kaur on 13.12.2006. In April 2007, wife of the complainant got pregnant. The said news was shared by the complainant with the parents of his wife. Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur was down with fever and remained under treatment at Civil Hospital, Garhshankar till 2.6.2007. On 3.6.2007, Yashpal Chechi, a close friend of the family of the wife of the complainant, pressurised the complainant to get the sex of the child determined. Wife of the complainant was taken by her parents and Yashpal Chechi forcibly. On 10.7.2007, complainant was informed that his wife was carrying a female foetus. On 20.9.2007, complainant came to know that his wife had terminated the pregnancy. On 28.9.2007, complainant came to know that his wife was earlier married to Ranjit Singh son of Daulat Singh and had been blessed with a daughter out of the said wedlock. Without disclosing the said fact, marriage of the complainant had been performed with Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur.
The trial Court, while acquitting the accused of the charges framed against them, held that the complainant, while appearing in the witness box, in his cross-examination, had admitted that he had never visited the house of his wife prior to his marriage. He had not made any inquiry qua the family of his wife. His marriage was solemnized within a period of one month. He knew Yashpal Chechi from the year 2006. He had no personal knowledge about the termination of pregnancy by his wife or qua the sex determination of the child. He could not produce any document with regard to the hospital where by the pregnancy was got terminated. He denied the fact that he had given any kick blows in the stomach of Inderjit Kaur CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M) 3 @ Sandeep Kaur, which might have resulted in the miscarriage of her pregnancy.
Dr.Navroop Kaur was examined as PW-3 and the said witness deposed with regard to the treatment given to Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur in the hospital from 31.5.2007 to 2.6.2007. She also deposed that possibility of termination of pregnancy in natural course could not be ruled out. She had not personally examined the patient qua her pregnancy.
Thus, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur was pregnant but there was no material on record to show as to under what circumstances the pregnancy had been got terminated. Learned trial Court has further noticed that specific suggestions were put to the complainant in his cross-examination that the factum of earlier marriage of Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur had been disclosed to him and it was also disclosed to him that a panchayti divorce had been obtained by Inderjit Kaur @ Sandeep Kaur and Ranjit Singh. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondents No.2 to 5 of the charge framed against them, are sound reasons.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence on record by the trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court.
It is a case where, in view of evidence on record, it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the respondents. Even in cases where two views are possible, after acquittal, in appeal, benefit will go to the accused.
Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M) 4 Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M) 5 jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly CRM-A No.193-MA of 2011 (O&M) 6 unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference.
When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
Hence, no ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE April 02, 2013 anita